IndexAbstractIntroductionIn Re-Inhuman ConditionsPrison Administration and Reform in IndiaConclusionAbstractIn India we have an archaic law relating to prisons. The purpose of prison is still suspended between offering a chance for improvement and inflicting maximum suffering on the offender. Over the years, the approach has changed dramatically and moved from punishment to deterrence and subsequently to rehabilitation and reform. In the popular mind, a prisoner is a criminal and a threat to society, law, order and personal safety; it should be locked away and forgotten. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay How can we talk about the rights of prisoners when they are responsible for crimes such as stealing or taking the life of an innocent person? But as Justice Krishna Iyer said; “A prisoner does not give up his basic constitutional rights when he enters prison.” Therefore making clear the impression that, despite the gravity of the atrocious crime committed, the perpetrator of the crime still has the right to life and is guaranteed all the rights provided by the Constitution. The Indian socio-legal system is based on non-violence, mutual respect and the human dignity of the individual. If a person commits a crime, this does not mean that by committing a crime he ceases to be a human being and that he can be deprived of those aspects of life that constitute human dignity. Even prisoners have human rights because prison torture is not the last drug in the pharmacopoeia of justice but a confession of inability to do justice to living man. For a prisoner all fundamental rights are an applicable reality, although limited by the fact of imprisonment. This research paper will highlight the issue of prisoners' lives in India in relation to India's effort to improve laws to meet the basic needs of prisoners. This research paper also aims to cover the reforms in prison administration and the history of the same, the constitutional provisions for the rights of prisoners, the jurisprudence decided by the Indian courts and its comparison with the international conventions on the same.IntroductionAbdullah Bin Omar , a former prisoner in Guantanamo Bay prison was considered one of the worst criminals when it comes to terrorism. Bin Omar was captured by the United States Army in Pakistan after spending twenty-three years in an unknown prison in Tunisia. The injustice that Abdullah faced was the fact that he was neither told nor convicted of any real or specific crime. Cliff Stafford Smith, legal director of Reprieve, a British charity that provides frontline investigations and legal representation to prisoners, found that Bin Omar was captured without charge and no trial was brought for him. Smith said that "there are many other Guantanamo prisoners who face the fate of Bin Omar, just as they want to walk out of Guantanamo, a purgatory of captivity without charge or trial"[1]. Another example of such injustice is Eddie/Canada. Eddie was convicted of murder and would remain in prison for the rest of his life. Furthermore, Eddie was totally aware of the prison procedures and knew his limitations during his time there. Although Eddie killed himself on August 10, the evidence showed that ignorance of the prison system on the part of those who developed and worked on prison rules, not to mention the carelessness of the guards towards their prisoners, were practically the reasonsleading to Eddie's suicide. These two examples illustrate and introduce my argument on prisoners' rights, which can be supported by article number five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"[ 2]In re-inhuman conditionsIn 1382 ... vs vs. [3] The Supreme Court of India asked, “Are prisoners persons?” And you answer: 'Yes, of course the negative is to condemn the nation and the Constitution of dehumanization and repudiate the world legal order, which now recognizes the rights of prisoners in the International Covenant on the Rights of Prisoners, to which our country signed the consensus. ' The Supreme Court added; «Prisoners are particularly and doubly handicapped. On the one hand, most of the prisoners belong to the weaker segment, in terms of poverty, illiteracy, social position and the like. Secondly, prison is an enclosed world, incommunicable to the human world, with the result that prisoners are invisible, their voices inaudible, their injustices unheard.' The court held that prisoners are entitled to every freedom not necessitated by imprisonment and sentence, namely the freedom to read and write, to exercise, mediate and sing, to move around the prison campus and to enjoy the minimal joys of self-expression, acquiring skills and techniques within the confines of confinement, and being haunted by humiliations and extreme weather conditions. Prison Administration and Reform in India In India, imprisonment as a form of punishment was introduced by the British in 1773 and more than 120 years -The old Prisons Act of 1894 is still in force, subject to minor amendments. The National Human Rights Commission has been working on a new bill called the Prisons (Administration and Treatment of Prisoners) Bill for some time, but it has not been enacted so far. Detention plays an important role in the criminal policy of every country. In developing countries, imprisonment is at the heart of the penal system, even though it is counterproductive and costly to imprison people and make the state responsible for feeding them. The prison reform revolution in India is divided into two parts: pre-independence and post-independence. Independence “India gained independence in 1947, the memory of the horrible prison conditions was still fresh in the minds of the political leaders who, after taking power, began to implement prison reforms. However, the Constitution of India which came into force in 1950 retained the position of the Government of India Act, 1935 regarding prisons and retained “prisons” as a state subject by including them in List II – List of States, of the Seventh Schedule, entry 4."[4] 1. All India Jail Manual Committee (1957) 2. Model Prison Manual 1960 3. Committee on Prison Working Group 4. Mulla Committee 1980 "Existing statutes having bearing on the regulation and management of Prisons in India are: Indian Penal Code, 1860; Prisoners Act, 1894; Prisoners Act, 1900; Prisoners Identification Act, 1920; Constitution of India, 1950; Prisoner Transfer Act, 1950; of the People's Act, 1951; the Prisoners (Attendance in Courts) Act, 1955; the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the Mental Health Act, 1987; the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000;The Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003;Model Prison Manual 2003.Whereas the Constitution of India does not expressly make provisions relating to the rights of prisoners, but in the case of TV Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu[5], Articles 14, 19 and 21 have been held to be accessible to both prisoners and menfree. Prison walls do not keep fundamental rights away. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law”. This article establishes two concepts, namely the right to life and the principle of freedom. From Article 21 of the Constitution of India it is clear that it is available not only to the free people but also to those people behind jail. The following are the rights of prisoners implicitly provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India: - Right of prisoners in protection homes,[6] Right to free legal aid,[7] Right to speedy trial,[8] Right against cruel and unusual punishment,[9] Due process,[10] Right against custodial violence and death during police arrests or encounters,[11] In addition to these rights of prisoners, the Constitution of India also provides following rights for prisoners: - Right to meet friends and consult a lawyer, [12] Rights against solitary confinement, handcuffs and shackles and protection from torture, [13] Right to reasonable wages in prison, [14] The Prisons Act, 1894, is the first legislation relating to prison regulation in India. This law mainly focuses on prisoner reform in relation to prisoners' rights. The following sections of the Prisons Act 1894 are related to the reform of prisoners:- 1. Accommodation and sanitary conditions for prisoners,[15] 2. Provisions for the admission and safe custody of excess numbers of prisoners who cannot be held safely in prison. any prison,[16] 3. Provisions relating to the examination of prisoners by a qualified medical officer,[17] 4. Provisions relating to the separation of prisoners, containing male and female prisoners, civil and criminal prisoners and prisoners convicted and under trial,[18 ] 5. Provisions relating to the treatment of undertrials, civil prisoners, parole and temporary release of prisoners.[19] “Prisons have been such a garbage can of society that they are also a garbage can of the law,” said Herman Schawartz, Professor of Law at American University's Washington College of Law. The European Convention on Human Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights. The spirit of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and other similar documents is that "men come to prison as punishment, not for punishment...". Yet these rules are repeatedly violated or not adopted at all by others. Villages. One of the major problems in prisons around the world has been overcrowding, which compromises the right to live with dignity. Although India's population crossed the one billion mark more than a decade ago, the number of prisoners in India is comparatively not high. . When housed inmates far exceed prison capacity, additional prisoners must be accommodated through internal adjustments, which creates numerous administrative problems. According to the Commission of Inquiry of Judge Leila Seth[20], the consequence of the arrangement of additional prisons through internal adaptations was that prisoners slept on the floor between platforms or raised concrete beds and three or more were housed in a cell intended for single individuals. , resulting in prisoners having to sit next to the toilets. Inadequate latrines and toilets attached to the wards were overused to the point that the condition was totally deplorable despite the Mulla Committee's recommendation that the ratio of latrines to prisoners should beone to six.[21] This is certainly not in line with Article 21 of the Constitution of India which talks about “personal liberty”. Because prisoners live in very difficult, physically overcrowded and uncomfortable, mentally isolated and frustrating conditions, they are therefore more prone to suffer from physical and mental health problems. All of these conditions can worsen illnesses and accelerate the spread of infection. According to the WTO, tuberculosis in prisons is believed to be up to 100 times greater than that in the civilian population. Even in India, tuberculosis continues to spread in prisons. This is not only a denial of a person in custody's right to medical care, but also a source of exposure and infection for other suspected detainees. It is guaranteed to every person by Article 21 of the Constitution and not even the State has the power to violate that right. A prisoner, be it a condemned man or an undertrial or a prisoner, does not cease to be a human being. They also have all the rights of a free man, but with some restrictions. Simply being in prison does not deprive them of their basic rights. Even when lodged in prison, he continues to enjoy all his fundamental rights. Once convicted of a crime and deprived of liberty according to the procedure established by law, prisoners still retain the residue of their constitutional rights. The importance of the established rights of every human being need not be emphasized and, therefore, discouraging their violation becomes a sacred duty of the Court, as the custodian and protector of the basic and fundamental human rights of the citizens. The Supreme Court has come a long way in fighting for their rights. However, the fact remains that it is the police and penitentiary authorities who need to be trained and oriented so that they take the rights of prisoners seriously.[22] In the case of Mathew Areeparmtil and Others v. State of Bihar and Others[23], a large number of people were languishing in prison without trial for minor offences. Instructions have been issued for the release of such persons. Additionally, the court ordered that cases involving tribal defendants be for imprisonment exceeding 7 years. should be released upon execution of a personal bond. If the trial has begun, the accused shall be released on bail upon execution of a personal bond. In case no proceedings have taken place against the accused within three years from the date of filing of FIR, the accused should be released immediately under S.169 Cr. PC if there are cases where no charge has been filed nor investigation has been completed in the last three years, the accused should be released immediately after re-investigation in such cases on new facts and should not be arrested without the permission of the magistrate . Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Conclusion Prison is for reform, not punishment. If we acted on the principle of "an eye for an eye", the world, as Gandhiji said, would be full of blind people. The terrible suffering inflicted on prisoners around the world is horrifying. We cannot forget the words of Judith Ward, who served 18 years in Durham Prison before being acquitted of the charges against her. He recorded what he saw and experienced being the victim of a grave wrong of injustice. He said, “I could never forget, leave it all behind.” I will never forget, more importantly, I will never let you forget.' Here are some suggestions as an alternative to the prison system we have in India today to let go of the atrocious and grave mistake of injustice, A) Mediation Schemes B) (1) 776